get_subreddit_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: 'Read-only; works anonymously' and clarifies that it returns metadata about the community itself. It doesn't deeply cover edge cases or errors, but for a simple read-only metadata tool the behavioral expectations are well communicated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences deliver purpose, return content, usage boundaries, and alternatives with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the core action and richly informative without being bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the main return fields and clearly scopes the tool's behavior. It also gives enough contextual boundaries to prevent misuse with other sibling tools, making it complete for a single-parameter read-only tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter, including the r/ prefix convention and example. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a subreddit's profile' followed by a detailed list of returned fields (title, description, subscriber counts, creation date, flags, URLs). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it returns community metadata and not posts or rules.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: use browse_subreddit/get_top_posts for posts, get_subreddit_rules for rules, and search_reddit with type='sr' for finding subreddits by topic. This is clear, actionable guidance with named sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.